Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I prefer the taxi theory, but yours is interesting.
Glad this is not "settled" science so we can have a civil conversation
PS how long would it have taken for the waters to recede? The only way the oceans would shrink is because of an ice age sucking all the water into ice, which would take more time than the animals in question could survice without food and water while treading water.
Oh wait ... a miracle!
The receding waters timescale depends on what mechanism one uses. There's the one about sinking into the earth, but other than the gradual seeping into the 'ocean under China' (which would take thousands of years), some kind of ocean -sized reservoir (which doesn't seem to exist) is then needed, or there is the ingenious Eusebian theory - the ocean was actually not very deep and the flood didn't need to add too many fathoms, but then the mountain rose up to say double their original height and the flood waters then formed the ocean where the land had risen up. Thus the water didn't need to 'go' anywhere.
Of course, the ice age is a moot point, but what is more of a problem is that the entire globe would be a mud -slick and you are looking at a year before there was any grass to eat, let alone trees. Survival on the Ark was improbable enough - remember, not a single animal could die or a species was extinct. After the animals slithered down ararat to the mud flat, they were looking at another year and more before there was anything other than what Noah was able to provide.
To me, the Ark is a lot to swallow, but it is the aftermath that puts the whole story beyond any possibility of being true.
Of course. one might be tempted to get over the problems by having God wave a magic wand, but then, as soon as you do that, the whole episode becomes unnecessary anyway.
Missing fossil records have never stopped evolutionists before.
Just so I get the point of this, just what missing fossil records do you suppose ought to have 'stopped evolutionists'? Rather it is the existing fossils that have never stopped anti -evolutionists from dismissing them as evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Exactly my point.
And a false one. Denial of the evidence for evolution is the mark of the more fanatic kind of religionist. Understandably you would suppose that evolutionists think the same way. It's called 'projection'. In fact evolution isn't particularly relevant to our beef with religion. It is just that denial of a massive amount of evidence seems foolish, and to maintain a ludicrous myth that not only has no evidence for it but doesn't even make sense, is truly the mark of the fanatic.
As most people know, the koala is only found in Australia.
In case you do not know, koala's have a very specialized diet... they only eat eucalyptus leaves. Eucalyptus trees of the kind they need are only, and have only been found, in Australia.
Koala's do not swim. No Koala remains, including fossils, have ever been found outside of Australia.
So, how did the koala get from the Ark to Australia?
This is why I believe we need to decouple scientific explanations from religious ones.
The story of the Ark tells a different story than the existence of koalas. God has always been involved, though, in both of them.
Just so I get the point of this, just what missing fossil records do you suppose ought to have 'stopped evolutionists'? Rather it is the existing fossils that have never stopped anti -evolutionists from dismissing them as evidence.
There is huge gaping holes in the fossil record. The fossils that Darwin predicted would be found to prove his theory....have never been found. But it doesn't deter evolutionists, who otherwise might have to believe in creation.
Quote:
And a false one. Denial of the evidence for evolution is the mark of the more fanatic kind of religionist.
Take a look around. You cannot explain how the universe came about. That's all the evidence we need.
Quote:
Understandably you would suppose that evolutionists think the same way. It's called 'projection'. In fact evolution isn't particularly relevant to our beef with religion. It is just that denial of a massive amount of evidence seems foolish, and to maintain a ludicrous myth that not only has no evidence for it but doesn't even make sense, is truly the mark of the fanatic.
I'm speaking from facts. Evolutionists, and those believing in abiogenesis have no proof, they have no evidence....but they continue to hold to the idea because they're too closed-minded to believe in a creator.
I'm speaking from facts. Evolutionists, and those believing in abiogenesis have no proof, they have no evidence....but they continue to hold to the idea because they're too closed-minded to believe in a creator.
Re the bolded: You've gone from exposing your ignorance to flat-out lying.
There is huge gaping holes in the fossil record. The fossils that Darwin predicted would be found to prove his theory....have never been found. But it doesn't deter evolutionists, who otherwise might have to believe in creation.
The fossils that Darwin predicted have been found. In significant numbers. However, Creationists simply deny what they are and claim that none have been found. It is faith -based denial.
Quote:
Take a look around. You cannot explain how the universe came about. That's all the evidence we need.
It is all you have, you mean. It is not only irrelevant to the case for evolution, but is no evidence one way or the other.
Quote:
I'm speaking from facts. Evolutionists, and those believing in abiogenesis have no proof, they have no evidence....but they continue to hold to the idea because they're too closed-minded to believe in a creator.
You have no facts, only denial. Cosmic origins and abiogenesis is not the issue. The evidence for evolution being the process by which species came about rather than being created all in one go is. you have been told this before like many other creationist apologists, and just like them, you rely on a mixture of denial, misrepresentation, refusal to listen and irrelevance in order to try to make up some sort of case.
I don't know what you think this terribly poor attempt to maintain denial is getting you. It must embarrass those who would like to see some case made for creation that you can come up with nothing better.
Vizio read the title of this thread and the opening post and said "crap I can't refute any of this because he's 100 percent right. Guess I'll hijack the thread and talk about evolution even though I'm nowhere near an expert on this."
Noah's Ark has been proven false by archaeology, genetics, and a whole host of other scientific studies. Why anyone wishes a shocking story of genocide to be true lacks true compassion for humanity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is all you have, you mean. It is not only irrelevant to the case for evolution, but is no evidence one way or the other. 
